




SPEECH 



DELIVERED AT THE 



WHIG MASS MEETING. 



HELD AT THE 



POYDRAS market; 



)i\ 



FRIDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 24, 1851, 



BY 



RANDELL HUNT 



i-pest of tliG V/liig Central Committee of the 
Parish of Orleans. 



NEW ORLEANS: 
1851. 



SPEECH 



DELIVERED AT THE 



WHIG MASS MEETING, 



HELD AT THE 



POYDRAS MAEKET, 



ON 



FRIDilY EVENING, OCTOBER 24, 1851, 



RANDELL HUNT 



Published at the request of the Whig Central Comxnittes of th( 
Parish of Orleans. 



"n<:w ORLEANS: 



SPEECH 

OF 



RANDELL HUNT. 



Fellow Citizens: 

It is a long time since I have had the pleasure of meeting and com- 
muning with you in a body. During that time, many questions of great 
importance and delicacy, touching the peace and harmony of the Union, 
and the very existence of our national government, have arisen, been 
discussed, and finally settled to the satisfaction of the great body of the 
American people, by the constitutional, honorable and expedient meas- 
ures embraced in the Compromise, adopted under the lead of Clay and 
Webster, Cass and Foote, and other distinguished statesmen and pat- 
riots, who — whatever may be their differences on matters of mere party 
politics — have, by their magnanimous conduct on this occasion, entitled 
themselves to the gratitude of every true-hearted American. And I 
should not be true to myself, to liberty, and to the duty which I owe 
the country, if I refrained from rendering them the humble tribute of 
my applause. During that time, too, the State of Louisiana and the 
city of New Orleans have remained under the regular and peaceable oper- 
ation of the present Constitution of the State; but I regret to say, fel- 
low-citizens, that we have failed to keep pace with our sister States in 
the great march of progress. In spite of the natural advantages which 
the city of New Orleans has enjoyed, she has been outstripped in the race 
of improvement by New York, and Boston, and Baltimore, and Philadel- 
phia, and other cities of the Union. Situated not far from the mouth of 
the Mississippi, with nearly half of the States of the Union at one time 
tributary to her. New Orleans has, u ithin the last five years, seen a large 
portion of the rich commerce of the Northwest gradually taken away from 



Uer: Though slie has increased in population and wealth, the increase 
has been small in comparison with that of other cities; and her com- 
merce, if it has not declined, has at least been stationary. 

What is the cause of this? Why is it that New Orleans has been 
thus arrested in her progress? Why is it that the State of Louisiana, 
with her fertile soil and great natural resources, has not kept pace with 
her sister States? 

The cause may be found in the mal-government of the State. The 
Constitution of the State is a failure. The Constitution is bad, and the 
legislation under the Constitution has been bad. For the last five years 
the government of Louisiana has been a failure. 

I do not say this upon ths spur of the moment, nor do I speak for 
'•hetorical effect. I have earefully watched the operations of our State 
government and long weighed and studied these things; and the result 
'■>f my best judgment upon them is, that we have been retarded in our 
progress, and paralyzed in our action, by the Constitution and legisla- 
tion of the State, The Constitution has indeed sat like a night-mare on 
the bosom of Louisiana and prevented her from breathing healthfully. 
With its restrictions and prohibitions, it has fettered the enterprise and 
industry of the people, and caused capital to seek a more natural and 
Ireer home elsewhere. It has failed entirely in answering the purposes 
For which it was framed; and the proper remedy for the people is to al- 
ter it, or to abolish it, and to substitute a new Constitution in its place. 
[ propose to say something on these subjects. 

The Constitution divides the powers of the government into three 
departments: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The Legislative de- 
partment is defective; the Executive department is defective, and the 
Judicial deiiart)aent is defective. The whole government is defective. 
Tt has had little eilect for good, and great elTect for evil. 

The CJonstitution provides that "representation in the House of Rep- 
resentatives shall be cquLii and unirorm, and .^iiall be regulated and as- 
certained by the number of (juahlieU electors." This is fair and equita- 



blc. It means that if three hiindrnd (iualifii'd electors m Opelousas or in 
Jetferson are entitled to a representative, three hundred of the qualified 
electors in New Orleans are also entitled to a representative. This is 
republican equality. But when the Constitution lays down the rule in 
relation to representation in the Senate, it declares, that the Senators 
"shall be apportioned among the Senatorial districts according to the 
total population contained in the several districts." 

The change in the basis of representation here made, was intended to 
give greater proportionate weight to the country in the Senate of the 
State. In the House, the number of qualified electors forms the basis. 
In the Senate the total population, colored and white, slave and free, con- 
stitutes the basis. The proportion of slaves to the ^vhite population in 
the country, is much larger than the proportion in the city. The Sen- 
atorial basis therefore gives an evident advantage to the white popula- 
tion of the country over the white population of the city. Without 
stopping to dwell upon this, and admitting it for argument sake only, to 
be republican and just, I call your attention, fellow-citizens, to the mac- 
ner in which the Constitiition proceeds to apply the rule. 

After declaring that Senators shall be apportioned according to the 
total population contained in the several Senatorial districts, the Con- 
stitution provides, "that no Parish shall be entitled to more than one 
eighth of the whole number of Senators." The number of Senators 
being thirty-two, no Parish or District can ever be entitled to more than 
four Senators. This is evidently aimed at New Orleans. Her popula- 
tion entitled her to a representation of at least one fourth of the num- 
ber of the Senators. In order to carry out this injustice, the Constitu- 
tion especially provides that in apportioning representation in the Sen- 
ate "the population of New Orleans shall be deducted from the popula- 
tion of the whole State, and the remainder divided by twenty-eight, and 
the result produced thereby shall be the Senatorial ratio entitling a dis- 
trict to a Senator."' Thus, one man in any other Parish of the State 
was made politically equal to two men in New Orleans. Is this repub- 
licanism, equality, justice.' The city of New Orleans is divided from 
the city of Lafayette by Felicity lload. By what reason, by what 
principle of justice, is a man on the other side of this division line. 



6 

made equal to two men on this side? Why is the resident of Ouachita 
or Jefferson given a representation in the Senate double that of a res- 
ident of New Orleans? It has been said by Mr. Taylor and others, 
that the Constitution extended the right of suffrage. Doubtless this 
is true. But it is evident that in extending the right of suffrage, 
the Constitution deprived the electors in New Orleans of the object of 
that right — an equal and fair representation in the Legislature. And 
yet, Mr, Taylor and Mr. Dunbar think this Constitution good enough, 
and seek to obtain the votes of the citizens of New Orleans, while, 
at the same time, they are endeavoring to uphold a Constitution which 
stigmatizes those citizens as unworthy of equality with the other citi- 
zens of this State. 

The framers of the Constitution were not satisfied with putting this 
stigma alone on the citizens of New Orleans. They went still further, and 
ordained that the city of New Orleans should stand accursed and pro- 
scribed — that the very soil on which she rests shall be considered as in- 
famous and polluting, and that the corrujjt and pestilent atmosphere 
that envelopes her, shall be held to embrace and poison the surround - 
ing portions of country within a circle of sixty miles. 

They provided that the General Assembly should, within a month of 
the first session under the Constitution, designate and fix the seat of 
Government at some place not less than sixty miles from New Orleans 
and that when so fixed, it should not be removed without the consent 
of FOUR-FIFTHS of the 'nitmhers of hot J i Houses of the General Assem- 
bly. 

I wish, fellow-citizens, that every one of you would read the argu- 
ments urged in the Convention in favor of this provision. "New Or- 
leans, it was said, was immoral and corrupt; the country members 
would be bribed by dinners, and parties, and moneyed influences, so as 
to be controlled by city factions, and would sacrifice the interests of 
their immediate constituents." Miserable pretext for a mean injustice! 
Why, the very argument is a calumny against the constituents of the 
members who used it. Those constituents never dreamed of this foul 
wrong. They never contemplated any injustice or inequality in the 



7 

jjolitical rights of the citizens of the ditferent parts of the State. — 
Their main object, in common with the entire people of tlie State, was 
to extend the right of suffrage and to effect a reform in the Judiciary 
of the State, The people of the country parishes are an intelligent, hon- 
est, high-minded and republican people; and when these matters shall 
be brought properly before them, they will stamp with reprobation the 
conduct of those who have misrepresented them. I do not say that 
they ^vill remove the seat of government; but I do say, that they will 
remove the stigma which is now fixed on New Orleans, and that they 
will put her citizens on a footing with the citizens of other parts of the 
State. 

For my own part, I must frankly declare, with respect to the best 
seat for the government, that the city of New Orleans presents many 
advantages. It is the emporium and mart of the commercial business 
of the West. From its situation, it receives the first information and 
news from other parts of the Union and from abroad. It is the centre 
of the arts and sciences, and literature of our State, and it abounds in 
libraries and other sources of information, necessary or important to the 
business of enlightened legislation. 

The evil effects of the unjust provisions of the Constitution in the 
apportionment of representation in the Senate, have been seen and felt. 
In the spring of '49, a crevasse occurred beyond the limits of the city 
of New Orleans. The river broke through the levee at Mr. Sauve's 
plantation, some six miles above Carrollton, in the Parish of Jefferson. 
The rear of our city was overflowed. I do not remember that I have 
ever looked upon so melancholy a spectacle. The city of New Orleans, 
after repeated efforts and a great expenditure of money, succeeded in 
closing the crevasse. It was deemed necessary for the future protection 
of the city to make a Protection Levee; and the best informed and most 
experienced engineers in the State prepared a plan, and presented a 
report to the Legislature upon this subject. A bill was introduced into 
the House of Representatives, making an appropriation for such a levee. 
It passed the House, where the people of New Orleaus were fairly rep- 
resented. In the Senate, however, where we had but one-half of our 
just quota of members, it was defeated or lost by a single vote. If 



8 

there had been a just republican equality in the apportionment of i^en- 
ators; if we had had the four or six additional members in the Senate 
to which we were entitled, even upon the basis of the population of the 
State, the bill would have passed; and the spectacle would not have 
been witnessed of the State voting thousands for internal improvements 
in other parts of the State, but refusing a cent to New Orleans (in which 
was centered more than one fourth of the taxable property of the State) 
to save her from the danger of inundation. 

Fellow Citizens: If we examine the laws that have been passed by 
our Legislature since the adoption of the jDresent Constitution, we will 
find them characterized by injustice and a narrow and illiberal policy. — 
Never has such legislation been seen. Many laws passed on the most 
important subjects, have been pronounced by the Courts to be imcon- 
stitutional: while others have been drawn up in such a bungling man- 
ner as to be utterly unintelligible, contradictory and incapable of being 
executed. Without going beyond the last sesssion of the Legislature, 
our statute book unfortunately furnishes convincing proof of this. 

Two acts only need be mentioned. The act creating a Board of Li- 
quidators for the consolidation of the debts of the Municipalities had 
scarcely gone into operation, when it was pronounced by the courts to 
be unconstitutional. The act establishing the Mayor's and Recorder's 
Court in the city of New Orleans, is so clumsily and inartificially drawn 
up, that it has never been put, and cannot be put, into useful operation. 
The only effect of these acts has been to give Messrs. Benjamin and 
Micou, as Attorneys of the Board of Liquidators, some fees which were 
doubtless well earned, but with no benefit to the public; and to give Mr. 
Reese the office of second District Attorney — a .sinecure of $1500 per 
annum. These are fair specimens of the legislation of the last Legisla- 
ture of Louisiana, 

The legislation was bad: the theory upon which the legislation was 
based is bad. The present party in power, has been substantially in 
power since 1845, and might have done some good, but they have not 
done any. Nothing whatever has been done for New Orleans. She is 
in a condition of atrophy. She looked to the Legislature for bread and 
received a stone. Perhaps, under the present Constitution, it would Ije 



difficvilt to pass laws giving New Orleans the benefits adequate to her 
wants. 

That instrument prohibits the Legislature from subscribing to the 
stock of any corporation or joint stock company: It prohibits the crea- 
tion, renewal or extension of any corporate body with banking or dis- 
counting privileges: it prohibits the creation of corporations by special 
laws, except for Municipal purposes: it directs the Legislature to provide 
by general laws for the organization of all other corporations, except 
corporations with banking or discounting privileges — the creation of 
which it again specially prohibits. 

New Orleans is in rivalry with the other great cities of the Union — 
with Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore. She is in want 
of banking capital — of capital for commerce and business purposes. — 
The whole circulation of bank issues of the State does not exceed three 
and a half millions. Look along the levee, and consider the vast quan- 
tities of produce under which it annually groans! You will see at a glance 
that our bank issues are utterly inadequate to our commercial wants . — 
In all the other great cities in the country, in Boston, in New York, in 
Philadelphia and in Baltimore, they have proportionally ten times the 
amount of bank facilities that we possess. How is it possible under 
such circumstances for New Orleans to compete with them? We want 
capital. We want the benefit of a large capital for business of every 
kind, and especially for banking. Under this condition of things, the 
framers of the Constitution have thought proper to prohibit the crea- 
tion of any banking corporation in this State. It is true, the banking 
system has been a subject of great abuse; and thousands have been in- 
volved in ruin by that abuse. But are we never to learn by experience? 
Can other commercial cities enjoy the benefits of banking corporations 
with safety and advantage to themselves, and is New Orleans alone 
incapable of managing such institutions? What commercial country in 
the world prospers without them? The Whigs in a paper called their 
platform, have declared themselves the advocates of "a well regulated 
system of free banks;" and Mr. Miles Taylor is reported to have said that 
we have free banking now among us. This assertion of Mr. Taylor 
may^be true in one sense, but it is unfounded in another sense, and in 
the sense in which free banking is understood by the people. It is true 



10 

that every citizen who chooses, and who has the means of banking is 
free to bank upon those means. There are no laws in this State to re- 
strain him from doing so, Mr. Robb we all know, is a banker; and Mr. 
Jacob Barker is also a banker, and issues his notes for circulation. In 
this sense, Mr. Taylor may be right in saying that we have free bank- 
ing now. But this is using the terms in a sense peculiar to himself and 
different from the general understanding of the community. At all 
events this is not the system of free banking which the Whigs refer to 
in their platform. 

In the State of New York restraints iipon private banking were adop- 
ted by the Legislature at an early day. In 1781, Congress incorpora- 
ted the Bank of North America, and recommended to the States to pro- 
hibit any other bank or bankers within those States during the war. — 
The Legislature of New York, in 1782, followed the recommendation. 
After the treaty of 1783 there was no law restraining banking in New 
York, until 1804, when an act, generally called the restraining act, was 
passed to restrain unincorporated banking companies. In 1838 a law 
was passed authorizing free banking associations in New York, and the 
system of free banking was established. 

Mr. Dunbar in a letter to the editors of the Delta, says, that there is 
no need of any change in our Constitution to establish free banking 
here; because in New York and in England, it has been decided, that 
joint-stock companies or associations may be created, in which the 
shares may be made transferable, the responsibility of the shareholders 
may te limited, and the company or association may be declared not 
dissolved by the death of a member, and suits may be prosecuted by 
and against the President of the association or company; and all this, 
without making such associations, corporations. And in support of this 
view, Mr. Dunbar refers to a case in 23 Wendell's Rep. 103. 

The decision to which Mr. Dunbar refers, supports the doctrine for 
which he contends. The distinction between such associations and 
corporations is nice and shadowy, and has, I admit, been recognized by 
the Courts. But the transferability of shares, the limited responsibility 
of shareholders, the non-dissolution or continued existence notwithstand- 
ing the death of a member, and the prosecution of suits in a name other 



11 

than the names of the members of an Association, are usual elements of 
corporations as described in the books. Attorney General Bronson gave 
his opinion on the 6th January, 1835, to the Senate of New York, that 
such associations would enjoy corporate privileges; and Attorney Gen- 
eral Beardsley, in 1837, expressed the same opinion. And in the Con- 
stitution of the State of New York of 18 IC, it was expressly declared, 
that "the term corporations shall be construed to include all associations 
and joint-stock companies having any of the powers and privileo-es of 
corporations not possessed by individuals or partnership." Two of the 
Judges of our Supreme Court — Chief Justice Eustis and Judge Preston 
were members of our Convention. They had signalized themselves as 
opponents of the Banking system — of any credit system. They both 
voted for the clauses in the Constitution prohibiting Banks to which I 
have referred. Judge Eustis has recently declared in substance that, 
in reflecting on his votes in the Convention, he was fully satisfied with 
those he had given upon the subject of Banks, With this bias then 
upon the minds of Judge Preston and of Chief Justice Eustis; with the 
dissenting opinions of two Attorney Generals of New York, as to the 
nature of free banking Associations; and with the provision in the Con- 
stitution of New York, adopted in 1846, declaring such associations 
corporations, can it reasonably be expected that capitalists and the hold- 
ers of securities will be induced to vest their stocks and money in in- 
stitutions created under the present Constitution of the State? With 
such doubts, whether well-founded or ill-founded, as to the constitu- 
tionality of such institutions, or rather as to the probable decision of our 
Supreme Court, would capital come here and engage in the business of 
free banking? 

What is this Free Banking? 

It is not, as I have already said, what Mr. Taylor defities it to be, a 
mere right of every man to bank on his own money or capital. That 
is not the system of banking which the people of Louisiana want. They 
want the system as advocated by the Whig platform. They want a 
well regulated system of free banks so guarded that while it will diffuse 
the benefits of capital, it shall at the same time afford a safe circulation 
convertible into specie at all times and under all circumstances. They 
want a system which may produce a benelicial influence upon our em- 



12 

barrassed aflairs and depressed community, Tliey wish a system such 
as exists in New York, or Massachusetts. By such a system, individ- 
uals and associations formed for the purposes of banking, may, upon a 
transfer of pubUc stock of the United States, or such other stock or se- 
curities as the State may designate, obtain from the Auditor of public 
accounts, the Treasurer of the State, or any other officer who may be 
appointed for the purpose, such quantity of circulating notes to be coun- 
tersigned and registered by the officer, as the State may deem it expe- 
dient to issue upon the stock or securities pledged. These notes after 
having been executed and signed, as required by law, may be circulated 
as money. If not paid on demand, they must be redeemed by the State 
officer with the stock or securities thus transferred: for this purpose, the 
officer is authorized, after ten days notice, to sell the same at public 
auction. The system then, is to give to individuals the right to asso- 
ciate, and to enable them to obtain upon a pledge of good securities, 
countersigned bills proportioned to the amount of stocks or securities 
pledged. It will be the duty of the State to take care that the stock or 
securities offered shall be good and sufficient. By a provision of law, 
the amount of bills issued may be limited, so as to prevent those who 
receive the bills from all danger of loss. For instance, individuals or 
associations holding United States stock to the amount of ten thousand 
dollars, may, upon the pledge of that stock, be furnished with notes for 
circulation to the amount of five thousand dollars. If the notes should 
not be redeemed or paid in specie when called for, the stock pledged 
will be sold, and the bill holders paid out of the proceeds. Where too 
large an amount of notes is not issued on stock, there cannot ultimately 
be any loss to the note holders. 

What I have said, is only by way of illustration. It will be for the 
State to determine the proportion between the stocks or other securities 
and the notes. 

What has been said of ten thousand dollars, is equally applicable to 
one hundred thousand dollars, or five hundred thousand dollars, or any 
other amount. Make the notes payable at the proper point — at the 
point most convenient to the note holder; and with prudence and care, 
and the adoption of such guards as experience has pointed out in New 
York and Massachusetts to be necessary and eflectual, the system cannot 



13 

fail to be highly beneficial to our struggling commerce, to the working- 
man in New Orleans, and to the people of the State at large. 

And what are the inducements which this system holds out to capi- 
talists to use their stocks and securities as proposed? Why, in the first 
place, they would have the interest upon their stock which would 
remain safe in the hands of the State officer; and, in the second place, 
they would have the profits of their banking business. This, then, is a 
safe and a profitable system for the capitalist, and it will be a safe and 
a proper system for the community at large. The circulating medium 
will be perfectly safe, and the community will be accommodated with 
bank facilities. 

This is the system of free banking proposed by the Whigs — the free 
banking by which capital is to be invited and induced to come here — the 
free banking by which every class in the community is to be alike bene- 
fitted, money made plenty, confidence established, commerce and in- 
dustry stimulated, and the value of labor raised. 

It is said that the Democrats are in favor of this system, I am glad 
of it. I believe the great body of the people — Democrats as well as 
Whigs — are in favor of the system. But I advise you fellow-citizens, 
to distrust the professions of those who have been so long in power, but 
who have never taken a step towards the introduction of the system. — 
Turn from them, and give your support to those who stand publicly 
pledged, and are ready to create and give legal efficacy to the system at 
the earliest possible moment in the best and safest form. 

However beneficial, fellow-citizens, a well regulated system of free 
banking might prove to New Orleans, it would, yet be inadequate to 
regain the commerce which she has lost, to open new sources of wealth, 
and to restore her to prosperity, unless a wise and liberal system of 
RAILROADS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS sliould at the Same time be adopted 
for the encouragement of the labor, and the development of the re- 
sources of the State. New Orleans may be considered, at present, for all 
practical commercial purposes, as cut off from communication with the 
rest of this State, and (if we exclude Mobile) with other parts of the 
Union, except by means of the Mississippi. Content with the natural 



14 

advantages which the river affords, and with having so long received 
tribute from the great valley of the Mississippi, she has remained supine 
and inactive, while other commercial cities of the Union, bv their supe- 
rior enterprise in making railroads and other internal improvements, 
have opened artificial communications with almost every portion of our 
country, and, by the facilities which they have afforded, have diverted 
from New Orleans a considerable jiortion of the produce which hereto- 
fore came to her market and constituted a great source of her prosperi- 
ty. New York and Boston have been taking away the commerce of 
the rich and growing States of the Northwest. Philadelphia, Balti- 
more, Charleston and Savannah, are rapidly drawing from us a portion 
of the trade of the valley — and Mobile is endeavoring by means of the 
Mobile and Ohio road, to turn from its accustomed channels a large 
portion of the trade of Mississippi and Tennessee. During the present 
season of the year, when the rivers are low, a person can come from 
Louisville to New Orleans, by the way of New York, soone rthan by the 
way of the Ohio and the Mississippi. All this is owing chiefly to the 
advantages arising from a system of railroads. Louisiana has but 
eighty-one miles of railroad within her limits. 

We must arouse ourselves, fellow-citizens, and enter at once upon the 
work of improvement. We, too, must build up railroads if we wish to 
prosper. New Orleans must stretch her iron arms into the interior of 
the State, and extend them even beyond the limits of Louisiana. She 
must carry her improvements to the doors of her neighboring States, 
and connect her roads with their roads. Tlie efforts made by her rivals 
to draw her trade from her will then prove unavailing. Large quanti- 
ties of land of great fertility, within our own limits, will be brought into 
cultivation. Along the whole line of her railroads, land will increase in 
value, while the property — and especially the real estate of New Or- 
leans will also be enhanced. 

The benefits arising from railroads may be seen in the progress of 
other cities and other States in the Union, and have been clearly shown 
by the writers on the subject. 

The advantages attending improved means of transport are evident. 
The products of agricultural labor have in general great bulk, with 



15 

proportionally small value. It is important, therefore, to the agricultu- 
rist that such improvements should be made as will enable him to carry 
his goods at the cheapest rate and in the shortest time to market. The 
expenses incidental to transport frequently amount to a large portion of 
the price of the article ; for instance, if a person should buy ten thou- 
sand dollars' worth of cotton on the banks of the Cumberland river for 
the purpose of shipping it from New Orleans to Liverpool, the price 
that would be paid by the consumer would be, not only the price paid 
to the farmer on the Cumberland, but also the price paid for its transport 
from that place to the consumer. This would consist of the freight paid 
for conveying the cotton, the interest on the price paid to the producer 
from the time of purchase till it reaches the consumer, and the insur- 
ance. There are many articles, indeed, which are of little or no value 
except in consequence of transportation ; for instance, ice in the middle 
of the winter in Long Pond, near Boston, has no value. But when 
transmitted to New Orleans, or to Havana, it becomes of considerable 
value. Guano is of no value in the place where it is found, but when 
transported to the field of the agriculturist, it becomes eminently useful 
and valuable. 

Dr, Lardner states, that when the Houses of Parliament were occu- 
pied with the Railway Acts, a great mass of evidence was produced, 
illustrating the advantages which both producer and consumer would 
obtain by the increased cheapness and expedition of transport which 
railways would supply. Extensive graziers declared that animals of 
every species, driven to market on the common roads, suffered so much 
that when they arrived at market their flesh was not in a wholesome 
state, and they were frequently obliged to be sold for what they 
would fetch The butchers declared that the value of cattle receiving 
such injury, was considerably less, in consequence of the inferior quality 
of the meat. It was shown, further, that steam vessels did not alto- 
gether remove the objection; and all parties agreed that a speedy trans- 
portation, even though it cost double the price, would be a benefit. 
The evidence was still stronger respecting the produce of the dairy and 
the garden. Milk, cream, fresh butter, vegetables of every description, 
and every kind of fruit, were usually supplied from a narrow strip of 
soil about the outskirts of great cities. The milk was of a very inferior 



16 

quality. The animals that yielded it were ted on grain and other similar 
articles, in a great degree, and not upon wholesome and natural pastur- 
age. But since the introduction of railroads, numerous wagons are 
brought from pasturages at great distances from the cities where it is 
used. 

It is evident that these advantages from railroads accrue equally to 
the inhabitants of the city and the inhabitants of the town. The milk, 
the cream, the vegetables, the fresh butter, the fruit, which are of little 
or no value in St. Landry, St. Mary, and other parishes, would, if the 
Algiers and Opelousas Railroad were established, become articles of 
considerable value ; because, by being transported immediately to New 
Orleans, they would furnish a supply to the inhabitants of that city. 
The inhabitants of the city would not only have the pleasure of enjoying 
these things, which are now wasted, but inasmuch as they would obtain 
them at a less price than they pay for similar articles at present, they 
would have some surplus money which they might expend for other 
purposes. 

We may form some idea of the increase in the value of property along 
railroads and at their termini, by looking, as I have suggested, to the 
progress of other cities and States in the Union. Massachusetts com- 
menced making railroads in 1835. In 1839, Boston had 167 miles of 
railroad; radiating thence in various directions. In 1850, she was con- 
nected with 3000 miles, one-third of which is within Massachusetts, 
1350 within the other New England States, and 650 in the State of 
New York. And we all remember the celebration lately of the open- 
ing of the railroad between Boston and Canada. — These great works, 
it is said, have enlarged the area of country which contributes to her 
commerce probably ten fold, and the effect is unprecedented. In 1 834, the 
value of all the property of Boston was $21,590,300. In 1849, it was 
$102,827,500, and on the first of January, 1851, it was $238,000,000.— 
The increase of the value of property was not confined to Boston. The 
State felt the benefit of the railroads. In 1840, the total value of the 
property in the State was $299,878,329. In 1850, it was $590,531,- 
881,making an increase in ten years of $290,653,552. 



17 

The population and the vahiation of property in the counties of New 
York, traversed by the Erie Canal were — 

Population. Real and P'nal Estate. 

In 1830 .... 460,562 $43,484,588 

In 1850 .... 564,685 84,000,350 



Increase in ten years 104,123 $40,515,770 

Colonel Gadsden, of South Carolina, states that land, all along the 
road to Hamburg and Columbia, for five miles each side of the South 
Carolina Railroad, has appreciated in value since its construction 60,500, 
and in some cases 5000 per cent., and where there were not $20,000 of 
trade, there is now upwards of $250,000. 

In Georgia, lands that in 1846 could readily be bought for 25 and 50 
cents per acre, can now command $10, $12, and $15 per acre. I might 
refer to the increase in the value of real estate in the counties bordering 
on the Vicksburg and Jackson Railroad; and to the counties bordering 
on the Nashville and Chattanooga Road ; to the increase in Charleston, 
in Baltimore and in Savannah ; but I shall content myself with saying 
generally, that while population, production and wealth have been pro- 
duced by railroads, real estate has felt most directly and powerfully the 
influence of those improvements. 

The railroad system seems, indeed, to have a creative power. In 
estimating the advantages of a road, we are correctly told, therefore, net 
to confine ourselves to a consideration whether the production at the time 
of construction will be sufficient to reimburse the cost of a road. "We 
must estimate the increased production caused by the improvement 
itself — the opening of new channels of trade ; the development of the 
resources of the country ; the expansion of commerce ; the growth of 
population, and the increase of traveling." 

Time is money. We are all of us, fellow-citizens, laboring men, and 
cannot aflbrd to waste our time. Hence, increased speed in the trans- 
port of persons, is a matter of importance. 



18 

A person in Louisville, who has commercial business to transact, can 
now go to New York, make his purchases, and return home in less time 
than it would take him to come from Louisville to New Orleans. If 
the speed ,at which persons can be transported from place to place is 
doubled by means of railroads, the distance is diminished one-half. The 
man, therefore, who can be carried to his place of business, five hundred 
miles in thirty hours, is practically nearer that place than another man 
would be who lived two hundred and fifty miles from that place, and 
who had no other mode of conveyance than by a horse. If we would 
induce travelers to come among us ; if we would attract to New Orleans 
men engaged in trade and commerce, and the general business of life \ 
if we would retain the trade which we are now in danger of losing, 
through the exertions of rival cities ; if we would keep the tide of com- 
merce within its accustomed channels; if we would bring back to us 
any portion of that produce now drawn aside from our market by the 
railroads and improvements of other cities ; if we would take advan- 
tage of our proximity to Texas and to the Western States, and of our 
position as a great commercial depot and an emporium of trade where 
those engaged in mercantile business in the interior can most conve- 
niently purchase what is required for their customers : if we would 
invite to us the trade of the East Indies through California ; if we 
would give new value to the real estate of Neu Orleans and of 
Louisiana ; if we would expedite the transmission of news and general 
intelligence, and facilitate the diffusion of knowledge by cheap and 
speedy conveyance ; if wisely looking forward to the happening of a 
war, we would provide for the quick transportation of a sufficient 
body of troops from various parts with a view to the defence of this 
State and of the country at large ; if we would give encouragement 
to labor, raise the wages of industry, restore our credit and advance the 
general prosperity of the State, we must, fellow-citizens, at once adopt 
the WISE AND LIBERAL SYSTEM OF RAILROADS recommended by the Whig 
candidates before you. To effect this scheme of improvement, it is 
your duty to bestow your confidence upon men who have never deceived 
you, and who are capable of performing the work they undertake. 

Under the present legislation of the State, no scheme of internal im- 
provement can be carried on. The Constitution, we have seen, declares 



19 

that the Legislature shall provide by general laws for the organization 
of all corporations except banking corporations. In 1848 a law was 
passed to provide for the organization of corporations in this State, and 
it has been well said that looking to its minute provisions relative to 
formalities, and its restrictions on the companies to be formed under it, 
the act should have been entitled an act to prohibit the organization 
of corporations. The time and place of opening books of subscription, 
and the names of the commissioner to superintend them, must, accord- 
ing to the act, be specified in the agreement of the parties who propose 
to form a company. The act of incorporation is required to be pub- 
lished for thirty days, together with the names of the corporators, etc., 
before the corporation shall commence business. The act of incorpora- 
tion must be passed before a Notary Public, and a certified copy of it 
must be presented to a District Judge to be by him examined. A copy 
also must be served on the District Attorney, who is allowed ten days 
to file his written opposition to it. Thirty days previous notice of the 
application to the Judge, must be published, and any citizen of the 
State may make opposition. If opposition be made by any one individ- 
ual, Mr. Benjamin thinks, that it is impossible to say, that a corporation 
can act in less than eighteen months or two years. 

The expropriation of property by railroad companies, is prohibited 
without the express authority of the Legislature previously obtained, 
and the company is prohibited from entering into the limits of a city or 
any incorporated town without the sanction of the authorities, who are 
given the right of determining the rates of tolls and fees. A single pro- 
prietor therefore on the line, or any municipal corporation may cause 
the work to be stopped. Twenty per cent must be paid by each sub- 
scriber at the time of subscription, although one sixth of that amount 
would be sufficient for all preliminary purposes. And the Legislature 
retains to itself the power, at all times, to alter and amend the law. It 
is evident that no adequate subscription for any useful purpose, can be 
obtained under such conditions. 

The projectors of the New Orleans, Jackson and Northern Railroad, 
have not been deterred by these provisions from making some prelimi- 
nary organization, and raising by voluntary subscription an amount suf- 



20 

ficient for the necessary preliminary expenses of survey, location, etc. — 
Under this arrangement the stock taken amomits to $400,000. This is 
evidence, under the law, and under the circumstances of the case, of 
the zeal, enterprise and good faith with which the road has been pro- 
jected. 

It is insisted, however, that this road is a work eminently public in its 
character, and calculated to promote the general prosperity of the State, 
and especially enhance the value of the entire property, situated on the 
line of the route and at its termini: — and that justice therefore requires 
i.hat means for its construction be provided at the expense of all those 
who are to share its benefits. This seems equitable. Experience, as I 
have heretofore observed, has shown that real estate is the first to feel, 
and to feel most directly the beneficial influence of internal improvements. 
It is proposed accordingly to obtain the passage of a law vesting in the 
parishes of the State, with the concurrence of a majority of their legal 
voters, the right to levy a special tax upon real estate for the promotion 
of railroads. Individual subscriptions have generally proved insuflicient 
for such works; and it is not just to suffer those who will participate in 
their advantages, to throw the whole burden upon a few. There are 
iilways to be found in every community, some rich men who acquire 
real estate, and Avho, knowing that such estate will be enhanced in 
value by whatever adds to the value of real estate generally, and espe- 
r;ially by works of internal improvement, will refuse to aid in such 
works, because not at first profitable in themselves, however advanta- 
geous in their general resuHs to the community. They say: "Why 
should we subscribe? If others subscribe, and the community benefits 
thereby, we will share in the common benefit, "without paying or risking 
any thing." Such a man was the late John McDonough; and I know 
half a dozen such at this time in New Orleans. The object of the pro- 
posed law is to compel such persons to contribute a fair quota for the 
benefit they will receive from the establishment of the railroad. And 
the question of determining whether the tax shall be imposed or not, is 
to be submitted to the people themselves in the city and in the parishes 
through which the road is to run. They are all interested in the general 
rise or depreciation of real estate ; and, if not proprietors, at least 



21 

expect or desire to be so* The tax proposed will be very light. Upon 
real estate, one-half per cent, would give five dollars on a thousand. 
At the end of four years it would amount to twenty dollars. But the 
tax is not without some equivalent, in addition to the benefit conferred 
upon real estate by the road; for the amount of the tax is to be repre- 
sented by stock, to be parceled out to the property -holders, who may 
dispose of the same if they think proper, and thus diminish the amount 
of their assessment. I trust, fellow-citizens, that you will give your 
support to a law so equitable and just, so well calculated to advance 
the interests of every portion of our city and of our State, I know no 
other way in which any great work of improvement can be carried on 
with a probability of success under the present Constitution of the State. 

With a system of free banking, and Avith a system of railroads, such 
as are proposed in the Whig Platform, the people of New Orleans will 
enjoy the benefits of capital, and of a sound circulation, convertible into 
specie at all times, and under all circumstances; while a new spirit of 
enterprise will be infused into commerce, and will develope the re- 
sources of the State, and give new encouragement to labor. 

If we turn to the Judiciary Department of the government, Ave will 
find its structure equally defective. The Constitution provides that 
"the Supreme Court shall be composed of four Judges, viz: of one 
Chief Justice, and of three Associate Justices;" and that "in all cases in 
which the .Judges shall be equally divided in opinion, the judgment ap- 
pealed from shall stand affirmed." 

The act of 1846, divides the State into seventeen Judicial Districts. 
For each District one Judge has been appointed, except in the First Ju- 
dicial district, composed of the Parish and City of New Orleans, in 
Avhich there are five District Judges. Now in the District Courts of 
New Orleans, we have five Judges of very different characters, and very 
different minds. A question may be brought before Judge Buchanan, 
in the Fifth District Court, which he may decide in favor of the plain- 



* Report of Mr. Robb. 



22 

tiff. A precisely similar case may be brought before Judge Kennedy, 
in the Third District Court, and he may decide it in favor of the defen- 
dant, and in direct opposition to the opinion of Judge Buchanan. Sup- 
pose an appeal should be taken from each of these decisions, and that 
both cases should be argued before the Supreme Court, at the same 
term, and, it may be, on the same day. If the Judges of the Supreme 
Court should be equally divided in opinion, the judgment of Judge 
Buchanan would be affirmed in one case, and the judgment of Judge Ken- 
nedy would be affirmed in the other. The consequence is, that, under 
the operation of the Constitution, we may have, in cases of appeal, 
directly contradictory decisions upon the same point by the Supreme 
Court. 

The same thing may occur in cases of appeal from any other District 
Courts of the State. And it has been held that one decision of the Su- 
preme Court on a point in one case, is not conclusive or binding upon 
the same Court in another case. The truth is, the Court may decide 
cases, but it cannot settle principles; and the people of Louisiana are in 
that condition which has been described by enlightened jurists, as 
wretched slavery — where the law is vague and uncertain. There is 
scarcely a difficult and important question presented to the Court upon 
which there is not some division of opinion among the Judges. It is 
not uncommon to see some of the junior members of the Bar going to 
the Supreme Court on Monday morning, smiling at the anticipation of 
hearing that which fills the elder and graver members of the Bar with 
deep regret and mortification — the dissenting opinion of Judge Preston, 
or of Judge E-ost, of Judge Slidell, or of Chief Justice Eustis. It is, 
indeed, lamentable to reflect that the frequent contrariety of opinions 
has greatly impaired the moral power of the Court over the sentiments 
of the people, and shaken the public confidence in the wisdom of that 
tribunal. 

The Supreme Court themselves, have, under an extraordinary inter- 
pretation, decided, that the Constitution has not given them adequate 
power to protect the rights of the citizen in criminal cases. The Con- 
stitution, therefore, I submit to your consideration, fellow-citizens, has 
in this respect, also failed to answer one of the main objects for which it 
Xvas established. 



23 

Under the Constitution of 1812, and the legislation of this State prior 
to 1843, no appeal was allowed in any criminal case. The Judge of 
the first instance heard, and finally determined the matter. In this state 
of things, there was no fixed principle to govern the Judges alike, but 
each Judge of necessity laid down the rule in the court over which he 
presided. H ence, it not unfrequently happened, that what was adjudged 
law in one district, was declared not to be law in another. In 1843 a 
remedy was applied to this evil. It was urged, that a man acquitted 
in one district of an ofience, could be condemned under the same cir- 
cumstances for a similar offence in another district as a felon; and 
that law to be just and entitled to the respect and obedience of the 
people, must be fixed and certain — an invariable rule operating in 
the sam& way through every part of the State. It was insisted also, 
that if a party is entitled to an appeal whenever the matter in dis- 
pute exceeded three hundred dollars in a civil case; he ought certain- 
ly to be entitled to an appeal in a case, involving his life, his liber- 
ty, or his reputation. The Legislature yielded to the force of this 
reasoning, and in 1843 established "A Court of Errors and Appeals 
in Crimmal Cases,'' and gave it "07ihj appellate jurisdiction with 
power to review questions of latv.'" Our present Constitution has 
given to the Supreme Court "appellate jurisdiction only,'' and "«% 
criminal cases on questions of law alone." 

The appellate jurisdiction, then, in criminal cases, under the act of 
1843, and the appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases under the present 
Constitution, are alike confined to questions of law, and conveyed in 
terms tantamount and equivalent. 

Under the act of 1843, it was contended that the Court, being con- 
fined in its jurisdiction to questions of law alone, had no power to revise 
the decisions of inferior tribunals in criminal cases on questions of con- 
tinuance and new trial, which were said to be questions of discretion 
merely. But the Court declared, that as much injury might be inflicted 
on an accused by an improper exercise of discretion, as by the erroneous 
decision of any point of law during the trial — that this discretion meant 
a sound legal discretion, which must be exercised in such a manner as 
not to deprive the party accused of any right guaranteed to him by the 



24 

law, and that when such discretion was improperly exercised, the acts 
of the inferior Court must be reviewed. This is the doctrine of the 
Courts of England when properly understood, the doctrine of the Courts 
of New York, of Virginia, New Jersey, Indiana, Massachusetts and 
Connecticut: — and it was invariably maintained by the late Court of 
Errors and Appeals in this State. It was reasonable, therefore, to sup- 
pose that the framers of our Constitution, by inserting in it the provis- 
ions of the act of 1843 and copying substantially the words of the act, 
were aware of the construction they had uniformly received, and intend- 
ed that in the Constitution they should have the same meaning. But 
each citizen is not at liberty to construe the Constitution for himself. — 
He must take it as it is judicially interpreted; and our present Supreme 
Court have decided that in criminal cases, questions of continuance and 
new trial are purely questions of discretion, which they have not the 
power to review. 

In the case of a man who was prosecuted for murder, where it ap- 
peared on the afhdavit of Mr. B. B. Lee, that the accused had been 
forced into trial without an opportunity of summoning his witnesses or 
preparing his defence — and where the Jury — after Judge McHenry, 
eager for a conviction, had compelled them by a species of duress to 
render a verdict — "recommended him to the onercy of the Court on the 
ground of the 'prisoner not being 2^'>' spared for trial;'' the Supreme 
Court refused to interfere, and adhered to its iron rule. That man, 
whether innocent or guilty, is now a convict in the State Penitentiary, 
without having had an opportunity of defending himself. The Judi- 
ciary Department, therefore, fellow-citizens, has failed from a defect in 
its structure; it is incapable of settling princijiles and of establishing the 
law in cases within its acknowledged jurisdiction; and it has been de- 
nied by the construction of the Court, the exercise of the power abso- 
lutely necessary for the protection of the life, the liberty, the reputation, 
and the property of the citizen. I speak with the freedom of history, 
and I hope without offence. But I speak regardless of the consequen- 
ces of offence — determined as a free man to give free utterance to my 
opinions and judgment, when speaking to you on matters of high public 
importance. The Judiciary department then of our Government, like 
the Legislative department of the government, has proved an entire 



25 

failure. The only remedy is in the overtlirow of the Constitution. The 
Constitution must be abolished. 

Fellow-Citizens: I have already detained you so long, that I will 
trouble you with only a few remarks on the Executive Department of 
our Government. The structure of that Department is less defective 
than that of either of the other departments. The principal objection to it 
as it at present exists, is the immense patronage attached to it, through 
the power of appointing to office. This defect, it has been and still is 
in the power of the Legislature, in some measure, to correct, by exer- 
cising their constitutional right to ]3rescribe the mode of appointment 
to offices established by law. But the Legislature has failed in this 
part as in other parts of their duty. 

I need not speak to you, fellow-citizens, of the manner in which the 
appointing power has been exercised under the present Constitution. 
[Several persons here called out — Go on; go oyi. Let us hear. Let 
us hear hoio it has been exercised. The speaker resumed.] Look, fel- 
low-citizens, at your Judiciary. See the persons that have been ap- 
pointed Judges in the city of New Orleans — the four Judges of your 
Supreme Court — the Judges of your District Courts. Extend your 
view further, and see the other District Judges throughout the entire 
Statel Have they not been appointed in the main on party grounds 
and by way of rewarding party services? Is this right? The office of 
a Judge is of a pure and sacred nature. It ought to be the reward of 
learning, virtue and ability, and not the prize of partizan labors — 
look next to the appointment of Notaries in this city. Is it not well 
known that men were appointed who were utterly incompetent to dis- 
charge their duties — men, some of whom could not draw the most 
common act, had never read a book of law, and were actually incapable 
of even undertaking the business of the offices to which they were ap- 
pointed! This was surely a gross abuse of the Executive power, and 
all candid men who reflect upon the subject must admit that the Execu- 
tive Department of the Government has been badly administered. 

I have endeavored, fellow-citizens, to point out clearly and distinctly 
some of the leading defects in the Constitution of the State, and in the 



26 

legislatiou under it. And I declare, that, in my best judgment, that 
Constitution and that Legislation have been injurious to the best inter- 
ests of the State and of the city, and that those interests will be still 
further injured, and the prosperity of New Orleans altogether sacrificed 
unless "the people shall come to the rescue." I can see no means of 
efiecting a change from our present condition, except by a change of 
men and a change of the Constitution. You must select for your repre- 
sentatives in the State Legislature and in the National Legislature, men 
of enlarged and enlightened views, who are not behind the times, who 
are attached to the Union, and who will promote internal improvement. 
In selecting your representatives in Congress you should be particularly 
careful to choose those who will endeavor to obtain from Congress ap- 
propriations to aid internal improvement for the benefit of this State and 
of the other States. The United States are large owners of public lands, 
of nearly twenty-eight millions of acres in Louisiana alone. As these 
public lands are benefited by the construction of roads. Congress has 
pursued a wise and liberal system of donating portions of them in aid of 
works of internal improvement. There is no reason why Louisiana 
should not, in common with other States, participate in the benefit of 
the system. 

And now, fellow-citizens, while the Whigs are advocating this sys- 
tem of reform and progress; of reform in the Constitution and laws; 
remedying injustice — removing unwise and illiberal restrictions and 
prohibitions upon the Legislature — remodeling and rendering efficient 
the Judiciary department — diminishing the power of the Executive by 
depriving it of a patronage corrupting and debasing in its tendencies — 
protecting and advancing the interests of commerce — calling forth and 
putting into useful action the now dormant energies and resources of the 
State — reviving credit and inviting capital among va — stimulating, 
cheering and rewarding labor — protecting the homestead of the poor 
man from the hand of oppression, and providing a more perfect system 
of public education: — Mr. Taylor, a leading member of the Democratic 
party, sneers at them as being conservative: because they are attached to 
the fundamental principles of American liberty, and can recognize no 
action as truly progressive which is opposed to those principles: and he 
vauntingly proclaims that he and his party are the only progressive par- 



27 

ty of this State. Impudent assertion! Progressive? In what? In 

removing the restrictions and injustice of the present Constitution? — 

No. Stand fast. The Constitution is good enough Jor him. In . / ■*- 

.■^■^■'-- fi-i^^. /t.- 
introducing the benefits of a free banking system? No. Standfast. In, i^ 

promoting the cause of public education? No. Standfast. He is sat- /^ 

isjied ivith ivhat has been already done. In advancing the cause "m / *^ 




internal improvements? Alas! the Whigs recommend it. 'Progvessiv^JS^*^ A 
in what then? In that only which leads to ruin. I do not believe tha0^"*^^J^ *< 
the great body of the Democratic party favors such progress as Mr. Tay- ' * '-/' %f~n-^ 
lor seems to contemplate. Ambitious men, anxious to display a zeal 
which mayjecommend them to the favor of party, and burning with 
the desirenjecome prominent leaders, frequently lose sight of the safe 
ground on which they should entrench themselves, and running ahead^ 
or more properly speaking, running away from the people, assume po- 
sitions untenable and ruinous. 

Mr. Soule, in his speech delivered last month in Opelousas, declared 
that "there cannot be two opinions among sensible men as to the abso- 
lute right of a State to secede from the Union, if he chooses," and he 
quotes Gen. Jackson as sustaining, in what he (Mr. S.) calls "his Coun- 
ter Proclamation,''' the right of secession. But you all know, fellow- 
citizens, that Gen. Jackson in his proclamation expressly denied the 
right of a State to secede, and declared that "to call it a Constitutional 
right, can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who 
are willing to assert a right, hut would pause before they make a revo- 
lution, or incur the penalties consequent on a failure." 

The speech of the Senator at Opelousas, and his speech on the ad- 
mission of California into the Union, are certainly extraordinary produc- 
tions, and contain opinions and doctrines directly at war with the great 
principles of the Democratic party. In his speech upon the admission 
of California into the Union, he declared, that if the people of the South 
quietly submitted to the measure, "then truly would those masters of 
slaves deserve to be slaves themselves; that they could be reconciled to 
a condition where to submit to disgrace were prudence, and to be con- 
temptible a necessity." In his speech in Opelousas, after denouncing in 
strong terms all the measures of the Compromise, he exclaimed, 



28 

"What! submit to evident and uiideniable wrongl Upon my heart and 
soul, NEVER, neverII" Oh, no, fsllow-citizens, he will not submit. But 
he will "endure." Still, while he lives, he shall, with all the energies 
of his lungs, protest against it." 

Mr. Soule declares, that the right to secede was fully and most em- 
phatically implied in the Articles of Confederation, and is not surrendered 
by the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation, upon their very 
face, declare that they are "Articles of Confederation and perpetual 
Union.'' And in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, 
it is declared that the people of the United States, in order to form a 
more perfect Union, do ordain and establish the Constitution. 

Mr. Soule declares, that a State in seceding would only "exert her 
undoubted privilege as one of the sovereign confederates." This declara- 
tion is based upon the notion that the Constitution of the United States 
is a mere league between sovereign States who have preserved their 
Avhole sovereignty. But the Constitution of the United States forms a 
government and not a league. It operates directly upon the people, 
individually, and not upon the States. Each State has surrendered 
many essential portions of its sovereignty for the purpose of constituting, 
with the other States a nation. To secede, then, is not to break a league 
but, in the language of General Jackson, to destroy the unity of a nation. 

Mr. Soule declares, substantially, that his allegiance is due to the 
State alone, and not to the United States. "Does not each of vis," says 
he, in his speech, "possess, do we not exert whenever we please, the 
right of changing our allegiance by passing from one State to the other, 
or to a foreign State. "Who denies it ? AVho doubts it ?" 

Does Mr. Soule suppose that his allegiance to the United States 
would be changed by his passing from Louisiana to South Carolina, or 
to Massachusetts ? Has he not taken an oath of allegiance to the United 
States? Has he not sworn to support the Constitution of the United 
States ? Does not that Constitution provide that the Constitution and 
the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and 
does it not also provide that the members of the several State Legisla- 



29 

turesand all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, 
and of the several States, shall be bound by oath to support the Consti- 
tution ? Does it not contain a clause expressly conveying a right to 
punish treason against the United States ? and is not treason the highest 
breach of allegiance ? 

How can a citizen of the United States say, then, that he owes no 
allegiance to the United States ? and how can he assert that his alle- 
giance is changed by "passing from one State to the other, or to a foreign 
State?" 

I can scarcely imagine how even a native of a State, who has not 
reflected seriously upon the true character and complicated structure of 
our Government, and who has been educated with false feelings of 
State pride, and been taught the extreme doctrines of State Hights, in 
the school of abstractionists and metaphysicians, can so far lose sight of 
the operations of the national Government as for a moment to believe 
that he owes allegiance to his native State alone, and that he owes no 
allegiance to the United States. But I confess myself entirely at a loss 
to understand how an adopted citizen, who may be naturalized in a ter- 
ritory, or in the District of Columbia — who may reside during his 
probationary term in one State, and may be admitted in another — 
whose right of citizenship has been conferred upon him by the United 
States, and not by the State in which he may chance to live, and who, 
at the time of his application to be admitted, must have renounced and 
abjured all allegiance to the Prince, State or Sovereignty whereof he 
was before a citizen or subject, and sworn to support the Constitution 
of the United States ; I confess myself entirely at a loss to understand 
how such a person can believe his allegiance is not due to the United 
States. 

These notions and these doctrines of Mr. Soul^, if carried out into 
practice, would destroy our national character as Americans, and put an 
end to the Union. 

Mr. Soul^ says, "he is not for breaking this confederacy ; he is not 
for advising the State to join any secession njovement which may be 



30 

made by other States." Oh! no. He only argues the right in the ab- 
stract. He would have the people still endure. But this is a dangerous 
philosophy. Practically speaking, there is but one step from the con- 
viction as to a right and its enforcement; from the suffering of awrono- 
to its manly redress. Ours is a govfernment of sentiment and affection, 
and if the feelings of the people are once alienated from it, the govern- 
ment, from that moment is at an end. 

What is it that the advocates of secession desire ? What would they 
have, who seek to destroy our Union, and to erect a State into an inde- 
pendent nation ? 

Who is not proud that he is an American ? The sun never shone 
upon a happier and more prosperous people. We have increased in 
wealth, in population, and in power, with a rapidity which has astonished 
mankind. Our territory now reaches from ocean to ocean. The power 
and prowess of the nation have been illustrated by sea and by land. 
Star after star has been added to our national flag. The freedom of our 
institutions excites the attention and commands the admiration of the 
world. Our country continues to be the asylum of the oppressed of all 
nations. Free, happy and powerful, we are known and respected in 
every quarter of the globe. 

Such are the results of our Union. But what would be our condition 
if we were divided into rival and hostile States. I turn with horror from 
the contemplation of the misery which would await us at home, and 
can see nothing but degradation abroad. Suppose Louisiana were to 
secede from the Union; suppose one of her sons, in a foreign land, were 
to be threatened by the minions of a tyrannical government with wrong 
and injury; what more ridiculous and insignificaut an object can there 
be imagined than such a person claiming protection in the name of the 
sovereign nation of Louisiana, and pointing to a flag with a pelican on 
it, as the emblem of his country ? Suppose the Union to continue, 
what more sublime spectacle on earth could then be exhibited than the 
American in a foreign land, unfurling the glorious banner of the stars 
and stripes, proudly pointing to the Bird of Liberty as the emblem of 
his country, and, in the name of the United States of America, demand- 



31 

ing justice, even from the tyrant on his throne ? [The speaker was here 
interrupted by applause : after a moment or two he resumed.] Fellow- 
citizens, your applause show^hat it is unnecessary to pursue the theme. 
I have spoken of high matters, and I trust not unworthily. I shall detain 
you no longer. Le^your votes at the polls show that you are the 
friends of true Progress and Reform — of Liberty and the Union. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 495 444 



